Stumping for Standards

In a society as mobile and concerned with equity as ours, location
should not determine the type or the rigor of the reading or math
students learn.

Two recent surveys by the nonpartisan foundation Public Agenda found
that a vast majority of the general public, business leaders, and
students support academic standards, descriptions of what all students
should know and be able to do at specified grade levels. President
Clinton has tapped into this general support for standards by proposing
the adoption of voluntary national standards and reading and math
tests. Not surprisingly, the president's proposal has met with wide
approval. The American Association of School Administrators found that
a majority of superintendents, administrators, and school board members
support the proposal, and the Business Roundtable's education task
force--chaired by the Lockheed Martin Corp.'s CEO, Norman R.
Augustine--has declared its support as well.

Despite the strong consensus for standards, many people are confused
about President Clinton's proposal to adopt the standards and tests.
What are the standards? What did the president mean when he said that
the standards would be "national, not federal"? Why are they voluntary?
The president has suggested very straightforward standards: All
students should read at grade level by the 4th grade and master basic
mathematics and algebra by the 8th grade. The standards would be
defined by national tests in 4th grade reading and 8th grade math. The
standards would be national and not federal because they would be
developed by experts in the field, not federal bureaucrats. Moreover,
although every state and district would be encouraged to use the tests
to assess all students, they would not be required to do so.
Furthermore, the federal government would merely report the scores;
states, districts, and schools would be free to use the information as
they wished. Finally, President Clinton encourages states and districts
to continue to create their own specific standards in reading, math,
and other subjects.

Some people have also expressed concerns about the president's
proposal. One concern is that national standards may hurt
low-performing students, especially those in high-poverty schools. In
fact, these students suffer the most in the absence of standards.
Students in high-poverty schools often receive high grades despite low
skills. A 1994 U.S. Department of Education study concluded that
students in high-poverty schools who receive mostly A's in English read
only as well as C and D students in affluent schools. Similarly,
students receiving mostly A's in mathematics in high-poverty schools
perform in math about the same as D students in affluent schools.

Shouldn't students in poor schools be pushed to improve their skills
so that they will succeed in college or a demanding career? Shouldn't
their schools be held accountable for teaching those skills? Public
Agenda found that students think so: Three out of four said students
should be promoted only when they have learned everything they are
supposed to have learned, and almost nine out of 10 said the standards
should be as high for inner-city schools as for those in middle-class
and affluent suburbs. ("Survey
Reveals Teens Yearn for High Standards," Feb. 12, 1997.)

Another concern voiced by critics is that the national tests
represent federal government intrusion into education. These critics
fear the thought of federal bureaucrats developing tests that set
standards for all students. On the contrary, the proposed tests would
be based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a highly
regarded exam that has been created through consensus by teachers and
subject specialists and used by states for 27 years. While NAEP would
set expectations for student learning and measure student achievement,
it would not dictate how schools should teach.

Yet another concern is that the proposed budget for the tests--$90
million over the next five years--could be better spent helping
students meet existing standards. Indeed, according to Education
Week, all states except Iowa and Wyoming and many districts
(including the District of Columbia) have either adopted or are in the
process of adopting academic standards, and most states already test
their students in math and reading. (See Quality Counts, Education
Week special supplement, Jan. 22, 1997.) These tests, however, have
two main problems. First, a vast majority of the states with
assessments have set very low expectations for their students.

Parents, armed with data on student achievement in comparable
schools across the country, will be empowered to hold schools
accountable.

Second, state assessments prevent comparisons of students and schools
in one state with those in another. State assessments also allow for
vastly different standards in subjects like math and reading that
should be comparable in every state. The Southern Regional Education
Board found that while many states report that 70 percent of their
students meet their own standards for student achievement on the state
tests in mathematics and reading, only about 30 percent of the students
in these states are actually proficient in these subjects.

Shouldn't the math and reading learned by Washington, D.C., students
compare in content and rigor with the reading and math learned by
students in Virginia, Maryland, and California? In a society as mobile
and concerned with equity as ours, location should not determine the
type or the rigor of the reading or math students learn. National tests
would set the same high expectations for all students and allow for
comparisons of students and schools across the country.

A final concern about the national tests comes from those, including
Washington Post columnist David Broder, who believe that
President Clinton is not going far enough. Mr. Broder notes correctly
that the proposed budget is sufficient only to develop the tests and
administer them once, in 1999. He also suggests, again correctly, that
two tests in two subjects fall far short of a systematic set of
standards. Finally, Mr. Broder questions the administration's decision
to make the tests voluntary, asking whether "superintendents and
principals who think their kids will not measure up [will] volunteer
for the embarrassment of testing."

Mr. Broder is absolutely correct: President Clinton's proposal is
modest, almost to a fault. The president recognizes (as does Mr.
Broder) the political realities that require starting small, focusing
on uncontroversial subjects, and avoiding a new federal mandate. We can
hope that the president will be able to encourage all states to
participate in the test and to build enough momentum that tests will
continue after 1999. But Mr. Clinton should not attempt to include
other subjects in the national testing program at this time; there is
simply not enough consensus over what all students should learn in
subjects such as science and history, and such a debate would detract
from the wide consensus that exists in reading and math.

Moreover, testing 4th grade students in reading and 8th grade
students in math makes sound academic sense. Research shows that
students unable to read well by the end of the 3rd grade are more
likely to become dropouts, struggle in later grades, and have fewer
good job options. Developing math proficiency in junior high school
enables students to succeed in rigorous math and science courses in
high school, which have been shown to increase scores on
college-entrance exams and prepare students for the intellectual
challenges of college and careers. Programs such as the College Board's
Equity 2000 are showing that all students can succeed in challenging
math courses that expand both students' minds and their options.

Testing students in these "gatekeeper" subjects during key points in
their educations will provide invaluable information to students,
parents, and educators. Students will be pushed to learn essential
information and skills and receive feedback early enough to improve.
Parents, armed with data on student achievement in comparable schools
across the country, will be empowered to hold schools accountable for
providing a high-quality education. Educators will be able to use this
same information to identify and then replicate successful schools and
programs.

Just as education is the key to our children's future, information
about education is the key to improving the quality of schools and
increasing student learning.

By
Christopher T. Cross and Scott Joftus

Christopher T. Cross is the president of the Maryland
state board of education and of the Council for Basic
Education, a nonprofit organization in Washington
that advocates high academic standards in K-12 education.
Scott Joftus is a policy analyst at the CBE.

In "50 Ways To
Teach Them Grammar," Diane Ravitch writes that the governors
--Democratic and Republican alike--who oppose national standards are
all wrong. From April 1996.

"What Should Children Learn?" Paul Gagnon in The Atlantic
Monthly, December 1995. Starting school reform by first deciding
what every child should learn strikes most people as only common sense,
writes the author. Only the vastly inertial educational establishment
considers it radical, he says.